This vocabulary strategy/tool is best used before reading as a way to activate prior knowledge, stimulate thinking, and motivate students to pay attention to texts as they search for the targeted words. It makes use of predicting to engage students. It can also be used during reading as students read closely to find the words, and then after reading as students revise their predictions. The teacher gives students a list of pre-selected words from a text and instructs students to use two or more words to write possible sentences they think might appear in the text. Students then read the text, locate the actual sentences, and go back to confirm or revise their own sentences based on what the reading reveals. Allen found this tool in the work of Moore & Arthur (1981) and Moore & Moore (1992).
According to Janet Allen...
Janet Allen places this tool under the heading “Assesses Students’ Understanding of Words and Concepts” but describes it as an instructional activity. She praises it as a way to make students more motivated and more mindful of careful, active reading because it sets a specific purpose for the reading and encourages curiosity about vocabulary through the student-generated sentences. . She sets up some very specific and systematic steps for making the activity happen. This is helpful for teachers who are novices at using the tool. (I think instructions can make or break an activity, so kudos to Janet!) She includes two examples, a secondary and an elementary, and as usual her graphic organizers are beautifully done. She then confuses readers by referring to Possible Sentences as a strategy instead of a tool, and then further complicates things when she reiterates that Possible Sentences is “an ideal way to build background knowledge and generate student interest in a text” (p. 83). So other than the placement of the tool, the author never re-visits the idea of assessment
According to Jackie...
Janet Allen calls this an instructional activity for “building background knowledge with targeted vocabulary words” (p. 82). In light of her descriptions of what Possible Sentences entails and how the process works, this makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the placement of this tool in the assessment strategy category. She seems to be contradicting herself. The only assessment that can occur happens when/if students monitor their own comprehension by checking to confirm their predictions and by revising incorrect predictions. Perhaps this can be seen as a kind of formative assessment if the teacher is continually checking in with students as the process unfolds, but I would more accurately place Possible Sentences under both “Builds Background Knowledge” and “Provides Support During Reading and Writing.”
I like that Allen advocates using a read aloud of a related text in order to “build context for the words they will encounter” (p. 82). We know that word meanings are learned from exposure in context (Stahl & Shiel, 1992). I agree that reading the words aloud is an important step in the process, and I think allowing students to work in groups to write their sentences is a good idea, especially if the teacher pairs strong and weak readers in groups. I also like that the sentences are shared with the whole class so that the students work together to make their predictions. “Open classroom discussion affords the poorer students the opportunity to learn from the better students in a nonthreatening manner” (p. 253).
Allen does include a nice range of samples, one from a secondary social studies teacher’s pre-reading lesson on the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire and another from an elementary classroom used before a shared reading from a book about animals, so it seems very science-oriented. However, as we have seen time and time again in this book about academic vocabulary, the words used in the samples do not correspond to a research-oriented concept of academic vocabulary. For example, in the secondary example the teacher uses the words sunny, oil, stairways, workers, women, cloth, never, floor just to name a few. These are not Tier II or Tier III academic words for high school students. She also includes Triangle Shirtwaist, Teletype, freight elevators, ablaze, and reform; these seem like words that are more academic, and that also will be pertinent to a deep connection with and understanding of a text about the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire! This would correspond best with Allen’s description of the word selection process: “Select words from the text that are critical to students’ understanding of the reading” (p. 82). She cautions that the selection should include words that are new and words that are familiar to students, but “all words chosen should be significant in the text” (p. 82). Without the text to confirm this, I’m left guessing, but so are the students. As an educator, I would much prefer hypothesizing to guessing, for the teacher and for the students!
I have some additional cautions for using this tool effectively with students. It might give students more ownership and investment if they have an opportunity to skim/scan the text to help identify challenging words for the activity. The teacher can have ultimate veto power, but students would be the best source of information for words they don’t know. I also think it’s dangerous when students come up with possible sentences that might perpetuate misperceptions about the content and concepts; sometimes those outlast the corrections, especially if the reading for confirmation and revision portion of the process is given short shrift. Another caution would be the need for careful scaffolding; teachers need to actively and effectively model the process for students before asking them to do it on their own. Blachowiz & Fisher (2004) encourage teachers to deliver explicit, rich instruction to develop important vocabulary and to build strategies for independence. They also advocate reading aloud, using informational material, and encouraging interacting, all aspects of Possible Sentences when it is done well.
Finally, Allen touts this tool as “One of the best instructional activities I have ever seen for building background knowledge with targeted vocabulary words,” but I would maintain that there are several tools contained in the book that do that much better. I would describe Possible Sentences as a complex activity that is best used throughout a reading lesson – before, during, and after – in order to support academic vocabulary development and enhance content reading comprehension.
References:
Blachowizc, C. & Fisher, P. (2004). Vocabulary lessons. Educational Leadership, 6(6), 66-69.
Stahl, S. A., & Shiel, T. G. (1992). Teaching meaning vocabulary: Productive approaches for poor readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8(2), 223-241.
Possible Sentences...
This vocabulary strategy/tool is best used before reading as a way to activate prior knowledge, stimulate thinking, and motivate students to pay attention to texts as they search for the targeted words. It makes use of predicting to engage students. It can also be used during reading as students read closely to find the words, and then after reading as students revise their predictions. The teacher gives students a list of pre-selected words from a text and instructs students to use two or more words to write possible sentences they think might appear in the text. Students then read the text, locate the actual sentences, and go back to confirm or revise their own sentences based on what the reading reveals. Allen found this tool in the work of Moore & Arthur (1981) and Moore & Moore (1992).According to Janet Allen...
Janet Allen places this tool under the heading “Assesses Students’ Understanding of Words and Concepts” but describes it as an instructional activity. She praises it as a way to make students more motivated and more mindful of careful, active reading because it sets a specific purpose for the reading and encourages curiosity about vocabulary through the student-generated sentences. . She sets up some very specific and systematic steps for making the activity happen. This is helpful for teachers who are novices at using the tool. (I think instructions can make or break an activity, so kudos to Janet!) She includes two examples, a secondary and an elementary, and as usual her graphic organizers are beautifully done. She then confuses readers by referring to Possible Sentences as a strategy instead of a tool, and then further complicates things when she reiterates that Possible Sentences is “an ideal way to build background knowledge and generate student interest in a text” (p. 83). So other than the placement of the tool, the author never re-visits the idea of assessmentAccording to Jackie...
Janet Allen calls this an instructional activity for “building background knowledge with targeted vocabulary words” (p. 82). In light of her descriptions of what Possible Sentences entails and how the process works, this makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the placement of this tool in the assessment strategy category. She seems to be contradicting herself. The only assessment that can occur happens when/if students monitor their own comprehension by checking to confirm their predictions and by revising incorrect predictions. Perhaps this can be seen as a kind of formative assessment if the teacher is continually checking in with students as the process unfolds, but I would more accurately place Possible Sentences under both “Builds Background Knowledge” and “Provides Support During Reading and Writing.”I like that Allen advocates using a read aloud of a related text in order to “build context for the words they will encounter” (p. 82). We know that word meanings are learned from exposure in context (Stahl & Shiel, 1992). I agree that reading the words aloud is an important step in the process, and I think allowing students to work in groups to write their sentences is a good idea, especially if the teacher pairs strong and weak readers in groups. I also like that the sentences are shared with the whole class so that the students work together to make their predictions. “Open classroom discussion affords the poorer students the opportunity to learn from the better students in a nonthreatening manner” (p. 253).
Allen does include a nice range of samples, one from a secondary social studies teacher’s pre-reading lesson on the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire and another from an elementary classroom used before a shared reading from a book about animals, so it seems very science-oriented. However, as we have seen time and time again in this book about academic vocabulary, the words used in the samples do not correspond to a research-oriented concept of academic vocabulary. For example, in the secondary example the teacher uses the words sunny, oil, stairways, workers, women, cloth, never, floor just to name a few. These are not Tier II or Tier III academic words for high school students. She also includes Triangle Shirtwaist, Teletype, freight elevators, ablaze, and reform; these seem like words that are more academic, and that also will be pertinent to a deep connection with and understanding of a text about the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire! This would correspond best with Allen’s description of the word selection process: “Select words from the text that are critical to students’ understanding of the reading” (p. 82). She cautions that the selection should include words that are new and words that are familiar to students, but “all words chosen should be significant in the text” (p. 82). Without the text to confirm this, I’m left guessing, but so are the students. As an educator, I would much prefer hypothesizing to guessing, for the teacher and for the students!
I have some additional cautions for using this tool effectively with students. It might give students more ownership and investment if they have an opportunity to skim/scan the text to help identify challenging words for the activity. The teacher can have ultimate veto power, but students would be the best source of information for words they don’t know. I also think it’s dangerous when students come up with possible sentences that might perpetuate misperceptions about the content and concepts; sometimes those outlast the corrections, especially if the reading for confirmation and revision portion of the process is given short shrift. Another caution would be the need for careful scaffolding; teachers need to actively and effectively model the process for students before asking them to do it on their own. Blachowiz & Fisher (2004) encourage teachers to deliver explicit, rich instruction to develop important vocabulary and to build strategies for independence. They also advocate reading aloud, using informational material, and encouraging interacting, all aspects of Possible Sentences when it is done well.
Finally, Allen touts this tool as “One of the best instructional activities I have ever seen for building background knowledge with targeted vocabulary words,” but I would maintain that there are several tools contained in the book that do that much better. I would describe Possible Sentences as a complex activity that is best used throughout a reading lesson – before, during, and after – in order to support academic vocabulary development and enhance content reading comprehension.
References:
Blachowizc, C. & Fisher, P. (2004). Vocabulary lessons. Educational Leadership, 6(6), 66-69.
Stahl, S. A., & Shiel, T. G. (1992). Teaching meaning vocabulary: Productive approaches
for poor readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8(2), 223-241.
(Wiki design by: Michella Maiorana-Basas)